Therenis NO God

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Finally there is testimony from spiritual teachers (Yogis) who claim to have a recollection of their former incarnations and therefore have some insight into the workings of Karmic law. Of course it is a matter of personal choice how much credence one attaches to the testimony of an eastern mystic but given that they eschew all material possesions and live an ascetic lifestyle they have no reason to lie-they cannot profit materially from giving a false testimony.

I would make the same argument as to why we should accept the testimony of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus' disciples. They did not benefit materially from proclaiming God's Word. In fact, they got nothing but persecution and death.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Christians base their beliefs solely on the third of the above mentioned criteria-testimony and that is the testimony contained in a holy scripture which was written over two thousand years ago and is largely of uncertain authorship.

Not quite. Christians base their beliefs on all three. The personal experience comes from prayer. Christians feel the Holy Spirit working in their lives, and God's laws written on their hearts. Christianity is also a logically and philosophically coherent belief system. Much of it is non-rational, but none of it is irrational. That's where reason comes in.

If you allow for the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent God, it follows that said God would interfere in the natural order every once in a while, for the purposes of demonstrating His existence and rewarding His followers(miracles). Is there evidence of this interference? Absolutely! While none of it meets David Hume's standards for evidence, most of it meets the norms of historical evidence, if not the norms of legal evidence.

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Substitutionary atonemnent and material rewards in an illusory afterlife are mere deluded fantasies-there is no logical reason to believe that they have any validity.There are no deluded fantasies in Buddhism,only coherent and logical beliefs which are perfectly in harmony with the findings of modern science.

As I have said before, I don't believe in Substitutionary Atonement, favoring rather "Christus Victor" and Anselm's Satisfaction theory.

And again, you are confusing the Christian Heaven with the Muslim heaven, as the rewards in the Christian heaven are not material but spiritual.

[ANDY-J2]

"A belief in Karma is sound and logical given that science tells us that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction-and in fact in eastern philosophy karma and cause and effect are synonymous"

This is very much like reading one of Fears replies. The difference is that Fear is aware of his role as a religious apologist, whereas you are not. Belief in Karma -cause and effect at the level of human morality and experience, somehow hard wired into the fabric of the physical universe, is as I said, a metaphysical leap, especially when combined as it usually is with the idea of reincarnation, because while we can observe, measure and predict cause and effect relationships at the physical level, we simply can't do this at the level of human morality and experience.Anecdotes are not evidence - you would have to be blind not to see all the gross injustices ...all the cases where the law of karma seems to have been grossly violated.

If we balance these cases with further conjectures (evil acts committed in past lives in reincarnation scenarios, etc) then we can 'explain' that, but this takes us even further away from an outlook based on observable facts. As I said, you can still claim that you ideas are not illogical, but you cant claim that nature provides any evidence of it. And again, this puts you in a similar position to Fear, arguing for the feasibility of your spiritual beliefs.
__________________


The fundamental difference between Fear and myself however is that he holds certain beliefs which are well beyond the boundaries of science.For example he believes that it is possible for God to be embodied in human form and he believes in the possibility of miracles and I would suggest that to believe in such things solely on the basis of ancient scripture takes an inordinate amount of faith.I believe in Karma primarily because there are enlightened spiritual teachers living today who claim to have a recollection of their previous incarnations-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people?I find the idea of reincarnation plausible because there is a wealth of scientific research which,while not offering definitive proof of reincarnation,does offer some convincing evidence that it is a fact.Now that is a million miles removed from the position of an orthodox christian whose beliefs rely solely on the testament of people who lived two thousand years ago.You don't have to be an objective rationalist to see that certain orthodox christian beliefs are intellectually dubious- anyone who possesses basic common sense is well able to perceive that.I would argue that it doesn't take a very great leap of faith for someone to believe in Karma and reincarnation given that there are enlightened spiritual teachers whose integrity is beyond question that recall their previous incarnations and of course such beliefs are becoming increasingly widespread throughout western society,even amongst christians.It does however take not only faith but a large degree of wishful thinking to believe in the validity of certain christian doctrines especially when so much of the bible is contradicted by modern science.Really therefore no comparison can be made between my own system of belief which is founded on the testament of living people as well as scientific research,and the faith of an orthodox christian whose beliefs are based on a holy scripture written in antiquity.In any case karma and reincarnation are not things which are uppermost in my mind when I study Buddhist philosophy.Buddha didn't dwell on metaphysics and neither do I.I am more concerned with following his moral precepts and becoming a better human being in this life than I am with any future incarnations or some vague concept of "nirvana".

[ANDY-J2]

originally posted by Fear nam Beantann

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
There are religions based on practice and those which are based on belief.Buddhism is one of the latter while Christianity is one of the former.


I would argue the opposite, as Buddhism is based on the philosophical precepts of the religion's founder, Siddhartha Guatama, whereas Christianity is, or at least claims to be, based on actual historical events (Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection). That's why you see Luke detailing his method of historical inquiry to Theophilus at the beginning of his Gospel. That's why John pounds it into your head that he is testifying to real things that he himself saw. That's why Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16-18)

You would argue the opposite only through a lack of awareness of what Buddhist practice entails.There is nothing in Buddhism which requires worship-there are no deities to believe in or revere (except in certain sects of Tibetan Buddhism).Rather Buddhist statues and imagery etc. are used to focus the mind of a Buddhist on the need to emulate the Buddha who is seen as the embodiment of moral perfection.Such things are an aid to meditation and contemplation-the onus is on the individual to strive to overcome their own shortcomings and seek divine truth through their own strivings rather than rely on a saviour to give them salvation.

quote:

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The foundation of Buddhism is that right practice and right thinking can lead one to a state of enlightened consciousness where one can escape the suffering which is an inherent part of human existence.


Then you attain "Nirvana," which differs from the Christian Heaven only in that it is the absense of desire, as opposed to the perfection of desire, and that you become unified with an impersonal god, as opposed to a personal one. I find it philosophically inferior.
Nirvana is not only the absence of desire and neither is it nothingness,which is what some christians argue.It can be termed as the awakening of the individual consciousness when one attains "absolute blessedness".Christians belief that such a state can be attained in one lifetime although of course they refer to this as salvation.Most Buddhists accept that Nirvana is a state which only truly enlightened souls will attain as it requires that one relinquishes all material attachments.Therefore it is not something which most Buddhists aspire to and instead they concern themselves with diminishing their karmic debt in this lifetime.
quote:

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
If my belief system is a religion then it is a religion without a personal God,without any superstition and without any complex theology or illusory rewards or punishments in a make believe afterlife.


Why is Nirvana any less illusiory than Heaven? If you were arguing for the superiority of Buddhist eschatology over Muslim eschatology, I would be sympathetic, as the Muslim heaven glorifies sensual indulgence. However, the Christian Heaven is just about as austere as Nirvana. All you get to do is praise God and pray for the Church militant and the Church suffering (Protestants will object to that second part).



When I meditate and focus my mind on banishing all material desires and negative emotions I often attain a sense of complete spiritual peace and I believe a deeper sense of spiritual awareness.I am therefore perhaps more open to the idea of a state of heightened spiritual consciousness which we attain through contemplation and meditation.I believe that the christian heaven which most people believe in is illusory because it involves material rewards for believers.I think that "heaven" is more a state of enlightened consciousness which transcends material desires.

__________________
"Pure religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

Likewise did Jesus add the mind to the list of organs with which we must love God. Christians aren't supposed to believe anything irrational either.

As I have stated previously I have the highest regard for Christ's moral teachings however surely from an intellectual viewpoint certain orthodox christian doctrines must be regarded as dubious.I have never witnessed a man turning water into wine or healing a blind man and I don't know anyone who has and to me therefore it does not seem rational to believe that Jesus actually performed such miracles.

Likewise is it fundamental to Arminian Christianity (all denominations except Calvinist ones) that the onus is on the individual to accept God's grace with the full consent of his will, to continually repent of his sins, and to "work out [his] salvation with fear and trembling." And in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the onus is on the individual to persevere in works of charity until the moment of death.

So why then do christians habitually use such phrases as Christ will wash away our sins-surely this is what many christians literally believe?Buddhism rejects all such notions and teaches that salvation can only be attained through accepting responsibility for one's own sinfulness.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Finally there is testimony from spiritual teachers (Yogis) who claim to have a recollection of their former incarnations and therefore have some insight into the workings of Karmic law. Of course it is a matter of personal choice how much credence one attaches to the testimony of an eastern mystic but given that they eschew all material possesions and live an ascetic lifestyle they have no reason to lie-they cannot profit materially from giving a false testimony.


I would make the same argument as to why we should accept the testimony of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus' disciples. They did not benefit materially from proclaiming God's Word. In fact, they got nothing but persecution and death.

The obvious answer to that would be that there is a world of difference between accepting the testimony of literally hundreds of people who are very much alive today and the testimony of a text which was written two thousand years ago.As a historian if I were studying any text from antiquity I would want to know by whom it were written and why and if it were a religious text I would want it to be supported by contemporary secular sources and while certain parts of the bible conform to the above criteria there is no denying that not all of it can be regarded as wholly credible.I would always value the first hand testimony of living people over any text of dubious origin.

quote:

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Christians base their beliefs solely on the third of the above mentioned criteria-testimony and that is the testimony contained in a holy scripture which was written over two thousand years ago and is largely of uncertain authorship.


Not quite. Christians base their beliefs on all three. The personal experience comes from prayer. Christians feel the Holy Spirit working in their lives, and God's laws written on their hearts. Christianity is also a logically and philosophically coherent belief system. Much of it is non-rational, but none of it is irrational. That's where reason comes in.

If you allow for the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent God, it follows that said God would interfere in the natural order every once in a while, for the purposes of demonstrating His existence and rewarding His followers(miracles). Is there evidence of this interference? Absolutely! While none of it meets David Hume's standards for evidence, most of it meets the norms of historical evidence, if not the norms of legal evidence.
You say there is evidence of interference by an omnipotent God but as you well know if I asked you for definitive and indisputable proof that this God existed you could not provide me with any.In fact given that the world we inhabit tends to be characterised by wastage and brutality on an enormous scale surely it is more plausible to believe that there is in fact no God or if there is one must question his moral goodness.

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm




__________________
"Pure religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The fundamental difference between Fear and myself however is that he holds certain beliefs which are well beyond the boundaries of science.For example he believes that it is possible for God to be embodied in human form and he believes in the possibility of miracles and I would suggest that to believe in such things solely on the basis of ancient scripture takes an inordinate amount of faith.

One need only accept God's omnipotence, and such things as the incarnation and miracles seem entirely plausible. And the Bible is not the only evidence for miracles, as I have pointed out. None of the evidence passes Hume's extreme doubt test, but most passes the standard tests for legal and historical evidences. It requires only a baby step, not a leap, of faith to believe in miracles.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
I believe in Karma primarily because there are enlightened spiritual teachers living today who claim to have a recollection of their previous incarnations-is there any reason why I should doubt the testament or integrity of such people?

I wouldn't distrust their integrity, however I would wonder if perhaps they spent so much time meditating on their past lives that they subconsciously created one.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
It does however take not only faith but a large degree of wishful thinking to believe in the validity of certain christian doctrines especially when so much of the bible is contradicted by modern science.

The only thing science "contradicts" is a literal interpretation of Genesis. I have no problem simultaneously believing in science and biblical innerancy.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
I believe that the christian heaven which most people believe in is illusory because it involves material rewards for believers.I think that "heaven" is more a state of enlightened consciousness which transcends material desires.

How many times must I repeat myself!!! There are no material rewards in the Christian Heaven.